MOLUGU LAKSHMINARASIMHACHARYULU Vs. MARISETTI RATNAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Of the above applications C.M.Ps. Nos. 3752 to 3756 are applications for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council against the common judgment and respective decrees in Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 55 to 59 of 1946. They must be now treated as applications for leave to appeal to the Federal Court. C.M.P. No. 3751 of 1947 is an application for the consolidation of the several appeals for purposes of pecuniary valuation, furnishing of security and deposit of printing charges and hearing. It is represented that the matter involved in C.M.P. No. 3756 has been settled.

(2.) These petitions have been posted before a Full Bench for a decision on the main question arising from C.M.P. No. 3751 of 1947, namely, whether the several appeals could be consolidated for the purposes of pecuniary valuation. There is a further question if leave is eventually granted, whether the appeals could be consolidated even for purposes of security and deposit of printing and other charges provided in Order 45, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, so that one set of security and printing and other charges would be sufficient. It is admitted that the subject-matter of each appeal by itself is not of the value of Rs. 10,000 or upwards.

(3.) The only provision of law directly applicable to the matter is Order 45, Rule 4, of the Code of Civil Procedure which runs thus: For the purposes of pecuniary jurisdiction, suits involving substantially the same questions for determination and decided by the same judgment may be consolidated; but suits decided by separate judgments shall not be consolidated, notwithstanding that they involve substantially the same questions for determination. It cannot be denied that the several suits out of which the appeals have arisen involve the same question for determination, namely, whether the lands situate in the village of Moggulla agraharam are lands situate in an " estate " within the meaning of the Madras Estates Land Act as amended by Madras Act XVIII of 1936 and Madras Act II of 1945. The determination of this question would depend upon whether the original, grant in favour of the predecessor of the several plaintiffs was the grant of an entire village.